Sign In / Register
A path to destruction
A recent statement from a Federated Farmers spokesperson recommended the model where the economy, environment and social needs are balanced. Unfortunately, such a model in practice means that the economy takes precedence and the environment suffers. This means that it is okay for some farmers to pollute and heat our environment.
A model based on the science sees the economy as part of the environment, not the reverse. The economic sphere needs to operate within the capacity of the Earth to support human life, for we are dependent on Earth’s ecological systems for our very existence and wellbeing.
Yet throughout human history, we have generally treated the environment as a source of resources to be exploited for human utility without any care and reckoning of human impact, and construct economic models based on that principle.
Currently, the global ecological footprint is about 1.75 planets. This means that we need nearly two Earths to be able to support our lifestyle.
A true economy, however, takes into account the value that ecosystems contribute to our wellbeing.
In 1997, the article, The Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital, was published by Constanza et al. It states that the services of ecological systems and the natural capital stocks that produce them are critical to the functioning of Earth’s life support system and human welfare.
For the entire biosphere the value (most of which is outside the market) was estimated to be in the range of US$16-54 trillion, with an average US$33 trillion per annum. Global GNP was $18 trillion per annum.
There are many farmers who strive to operate in a way that protects our environment. They recognise that a Triple Bottom Line Economy is a path to more intense and frequent extreme weather events and a dismal future for humanity. It is time Federated Farmers got real.
Dr Robert Howell, Warkworth
Retirement village
I write with some concern at all the proposed retirement villages/accommodation for Warkworth. I feel that if all of these were to go ahead that Warkworth will become ‘Warkworth Retirement Village’, which is OK if you’re over 65 (myself being 77).
One of these, I read, is the extension to the Warkworth Oaks retirement village and their plans to take over/purchase the Warkworth Bowling Club and, I believe, the land behind the club, which they may already own?
This is prime land in central Warkworth, and it’s one of the last semi-vacant lots in the central area, which could be extended with the inclusion of some neighbouring properties, for the future (planned) growth of our beautiful village.
Unfortunately, there is no current planning for any growth and Warkworth desperately needs to get more parking, as well as more accommodation in the form of a hotel of around 40 to 60 rooms to help grow its hospitality and retail industry.
It’s not just Warkworth – the surrounding area needs more accommodation as we are now only 50 minutes’ drive from downtown Auckland, and I’m told this is a fast-growing tourist destination.
Warkworth also needs to start attracting a wider variety of retail stores as we are starting to see a few vacant shops in the area.
Not to mention the opening of the Kowhai Falls retail centre that has taken a lot of business away from the village – we can only take so many second-hand stores, which currently appears to be all that’s being attracted.
Warkworth, with its beautiful setting on the river and wharf area, deserves to be better planned to make it one of the best villages in NZ to not only live in but to visit as well.
The bowling club land, as I see it, is one of the main keys to the town’s future.
There are areas outside of this central area for retirement villages.
Maury Purdy, Warkworth
